The library system is moving to a new mobile app! The current library mobile app will not be available after February. This only relates to the library’s mobile app (used on phones and tablets). You can still connect to the library through your desktop, laptop, or mobile device’s web browser at https://rcpl.bibliocommons.com/ Projected date for the new mobile app is February. We apologize for the inconvenience

Antichrist

In this graphic psychodrama, a grief-stricken man and woman retreat to a cabin deep in the woods after the accidental death of their infant son, only to find terror and violence at the hands of nature and, ultimately, each other. But this most confrontational work yet from one of contemporary cinema's most controversial artists is no mere provocation. It is a visually sublime, emotionally ravaging journey to the darkest corners of the possessed human mind.

Community Activity

Comment

Lars Von whomever needs to pursue mental health help. I like twisted, and I like schlock horror and all that comes with. This is just sick and not what one would expect with Dafoe and Gainsborough starring.

I have found that group-fantasies of monstrous bloodthirsty women have preceded every war that I have analyzed. Even the most popular movies prior to wars reflect this dangerous woman fantasy. The biggest movie preceding WWII was ‘The Wizard of Oz’, which is about a wicked witch and how to kill her; the second biggest was ‘Gone With the Wind’, featuring a bitchy Scarlet; and the third biggest was ‘The Women’, which boasted that it featured 135 dangerous women. ‘All About Eve’ before Korea and ‘Cleopatra’ before Vietnam had similar dangerous women as leads, and the Persian Gulf War was preceded by a whole string of dangerous women movies, from ‘Fatal Attraction’ to ‘Thelma and Louise’, including a hit TV series entitled “Dangerous Women.” [In addition there was Kill Bill at the time of the Iraq War.]

Hallucinating dangerous feminine characteristics in one’s enemies goes all the way back to antiquity, when the earliest battles were imagined to have been fought against female monsters, often the mother of the hero, whatever her name—Tiamat, Ishtar, Inanna, Isis, or Kali. Typical is the Aztec mother-goddess Huitzilopochtli, who had “mouths all over her body” that cried out to be fed the blood of soldiers. Early Indo-European warriors had to pass through initiatory rituals in order to attain full status in which they dressed up and attacked a monstrous dummy female poisonous serpent, complete with three heads. Although early warriors fought against men, not women, they often anally raped and castrated their enemies, turning them into symbolic women; from ancient Norse to ancient Egyptian societies, heaps of enemy penises on the battlefield are commonly portrayed. Rape appears to be one of the most powerful motivations for war; according to the world’s leading historian of war, “the opportunity to engage in wholesale rape was not just among the rewards of successful war but, from the soldier’s point of view, one of the cardinal objectives for which he fought.” More women have been raped and killed in some wars than enemy soldiers. The hero is therefore simultaneously both a ‘self-killer’, punishing projected parts of himself, and a ‘mother-killer’, inflicting revenge for early traumas.

At the same time, by restaging early traumas in wars the magical goal is achieved of merging with the mother in a defensive maneuver to deny her as a dangerous object. Giving one’s life for one’s Motherland means finally joining with her. The soldier who dies in war, says one patriot, “dies peacefully. He who has a Motherland dies in comfort in her, like a baby falling asleep in its warm and soft cradle.”

Yet even though we understand that both the Motherland and the enemy in wars are ultimately the mother, the question remains: what could possibly be the infantile origin of fantasies of the enemy as a poisonous bloodsucking monster? Why did Americans before the Revolutionary War feel “poisoned by Mother England” and fight a war rather than pay a minor tax? Why did Hitler fear “bloodsucking Jews and foreigners,” and why did Aztec soldiers go to war to feed blood to a monstrous mother-goddess? Closer to today, why did Americans for so long fear their “national life-blood” was being poisoned by Communists? Why do so many today feel the government and welfare recipients are sucking their blood? Images of bloodsucking, engulfing enemies are ubiquitous throughout history. Surely our blood was never really poisoned or sucked out of us by a maternal monster in our past. Or was it?

— from The Emotional Life of Nations by Lloyd deMause; p. 56-7 (Restaging Early Traumas in War and Social Violence)

Left me shaken and deeply disturbed. Truly submit to this film and you will never forget it. Both graphic and gruesome, watch at your own risk. Pairs incredibly well with Pedro Pires' short film 'Danse Macabre.'

Lars von Trier takes the story of one woman’s pathological grief and tries to rewrite it as a horror movie in this completely ludicrous exercise in poor taste and laughable excesses. It starts with a highly stylized monochromatic opening sequence in which a nameless couple enjoy a slow-motion fuck in a steamy bathroom while their unsupervised toddler decides to take a slow-motion header out the window; pretty effective except the accompanying baroque aria makes the whole thing sound like a Chanel No. 5 commercial. Outraged at his wife’s diagnosis of “atypical grief” the husband, a therapist himself, decides to take her to their cabin in the country which they’ve nicknamed......wait for it.......EDEN! Of course things go from bad to worse with hysterical accusations being made and an oppressive sense of, ummm, something or other in the air prompting endless scenes of menacing trees and raucous acorns. Soon the forest around “Eden” begins to bear a close resemblance to the haunted woods in Raimi’s The Evil Dead with deeply symbolic crap happening daily; a baby bird falls out of a tree only to be attacked by ants and finally devoured by a hawk, and in one of the film’s more rib-tickling moments the man comes upon an eviscerated fox which looks him in they eye and growls “Chaos reigns!” It would appear that even Mother Nature has a bone to pick with our transgressive lovebirds. Anyway, the couple eventually descend into guilt-riddled madness accompanied by all sorts of gruesome bloodstained nonsense involving scissors, grindstones and a log to the groin. A lot of lip service is given to the mythical “three beggars”, namely Pain, Grief, and Despair (they even appear as statues on the doomed child’s dresser); the concept of “falling” is certainly stressed whether it be a fall from a window, a fall from grace, or falling out of love; and the old right brain/left brain dichotomy is stressed ad nauseam. Pretty standard Psych 101 fare. By serving up this steaming pile of psychotic gibberish and calling it art Von Trier once again demonstrates his intense dislike for anyone who isn’t Lars Von Trier. While some may consider it a wrenching emotional catharsis from the mind of a tortured artist I saw a pathetically gratuitous shockfest from a jaded poseur with a chronically inflated ego.

I understand that some filmmakers are driven to push the edge of the envelope but certain scenes were so horrible that four adults fainted at its Cannes premeire. And if you can stomach this film, even the most skeptical/cynical viewer will empathize.

Von Trier is a genius, but modifying @ 15-20 seconds of this film would have made it more palatable. High art and deep themes usually produce rewarding film but offensively brutal graphic scenes detract from a film that should and could have been the rare five-star film. Approach with caution.

Wanted to like this movie, but didn't. Found it intolerable. Couldn't even make it 15 minutes!

IClare
Jan 13, 2014

I don't really know how to rate this movie. I can't say I liked it, but it was intriguing so I can't say I didn't like it either. And I don't really know how to describe it. A psychoanalytic, horror-like, somewhat artsy (the visual scenes of nature relating to the wife's anxiety, the opening shots in the beginning that were like still images) look into a marriage/relationship of two people trying to cope with death. It's definitely got a lot of graphic scenes, and some are difficult to watch, particularly the mutilation scene with the scissors. It's somewhat refreshing to see something different and not the regular cookie cutter movie with the Hollywood ending. Especially because it left me with more questions than answers. It definitely makes you ponder. What I also find interesting and somewhat scary is that the premise of the movie and a lot of the visualizations came from Lars Von Trier's own dreams. Take a look at the interviews with the director and the cast. If you're a movie nerd like me, their interviews will give you insight into the film, rather than just writing it off as a sick, pornographic movie.

publictakeover
Oct 09, 2013

I was not able to appreciate this film. I found the premise of the film too preposterous to believe, the dialogue and cinematography boring and pretentious, and I never even made it through to the "good" part.

Advice: If you want to manage to watch the whole thing through to the end, have a couple of espressos first and watch it with a hot date.

voisjoe1
Aug 15, 2013

WARNING !– HIGHLY GRAHIC FILM !– A whole lot of people are not going to like this film. Charlotte Gainsbourg won the Cannes prize for best actress and the film was nominated for the Cannes Palm d’Or. The film contains some of the most modern and original surrealism that I have ever seen. Understatement of the year – It is not wise for a husband, who is a therapist, to try to solve his family's emotional problems. Use an independent therapist instead.